My point of view requires no such thing. It seems fairly obvious to me that the old families have been talking and listening mostly to each other for a very long time, and they seem to have no clue what modern muggles would be able to marshal against them in any modern war. Voldemort's followers think their enemy is the statute of secrecy, and that if it were abolished they could take their rightful place at the helm of humankind. That seems incredibly naive and ignorant to me, too.
But some of their older assumptions, and some of the stuff Salazar Slytherin was working off of (like realizing that if anyone was going to have the means and the motivation to betray wizards to muggles, it would be the muggle-borns and half-bloods at Hogwarts), seem more grounded in reality than this idealized view of muggle harmlessness and benevolent wizard supremacy that seems to inform the Gryffindors.
And make no mistake - someone who can avoid burning to death by waving a stick around is not "different but equal" to someone who can't. So, in a very fundamental sense, it's not reasonable to equate muggles and wizards to different races of humans. Colin Creevey at twelve had powers that Filch will never have. Harry the wizard can look forward to getting to be several hundred years old, if he doesn't die an unnatural and premature death. He could outlive Dudley's grandchildren. These are not minor differences, and the fact that wizards and muggles can interbreed does not make them insignificant. And I could go on. For simplicity's sake, I just picked out a couple of things. But the fact that (some) wizard demagogues overstate the case for what magic gives them doesn't mean there isn't a serious power imbalance here. And "let's make them forget we exist instead of dealing with it" does not seem to me like a reasonable way to handle any of that.
And what's not being addressed eats into the edges of the story - notice how in all these cases where one of the parents is a wizard and the other is a muggle, it's the woman who has magic. The minute you try doing that the other way, there's a power imbalance stacked on another power imbalance. If Seamus' father had been a wizard, and his mother had been a muggle, would it still be funny if she got a nasty shock when she found out she'd married someone quite different than she assumed he was? But the fact that it isn't in the book doesn't mean it isn't happening. So how do half-bloods look, if you consider that one of their parents has all the powers magic puts at their disposal, and the other doesn't? Maybe not so much like the product of open-mindedness and the power of love, or not automatically so.
I'll stop here because I think I answered your question and then some.
no subject
My point of view requires no such thing. It seems fairly obvious to me that the old families have been talking and listening mostly to each other for a very long time, and they seem to have no clue what modern muggles would be able to marshal against them in any modern war. Voldemort's followers think their enemy is the statute of secrecy, and that if it were abolished they could take their rightful place at the helm of humankind. That seems incredibly naive and ignorant to me, too.
But some of their older assumptions, and some of the stuff Salazar Slytherin was working off of (like realizing that if anyone was going to have the means and the motivation to betray wizards to muggles, it would be the muggle-borns and half-bloods at Hogwarts), seem more grounded in reality than this idealized view of muggle harmlessness and benevolent wizard supremacy that seems to inform the Gryffindors.
And make no mistake - someone who can avoid burning to death by waving a stick around is not "different but equal" to someone who can't. So, in a very fundamental sense, it's not reasonable to equate muggles and wizards to different races of humans. Colin Creevey at twelve had powers that Filch will never have. Harry the wizard can look forward to getting to be several hundred years old, if he doesn't die an unnatural and premature death. He could outlive Dudley's grandchildren. These are not minor differences, and the fact that wizards and muggles can interbreed does not make them insignificant. And I could go on. For simplicity's sake, I just picked out a couple of things. But the fact that (some) wizard demagogues overstate the case for what magic gives them doesn't mean there isn't a serious power imbalance here. And "let's make them forget we exist instead of dealing with it" does not seem to me like a reasonable way to handle any of that.
And what's not being addressed eats into the edges of the story - notice how in all these cases where one of the parents is a wizard and the other is a muggle, it's the woman who has magic. The minute you try doing that the other way, there's a power imbalance stacked on another power imbalance. If Seamus' father had been a wizard, and his mother had been a muggle, would it still be funny if she got a nasty shock when she found out she'd married someone quite different than she assumed he was? But the fact that it isn't in the book doesn't mean it isn't happening. So how do half-bloods look, if you consider that one of their parents has all the powers magic puts at their disposal, and the other doesn't? Maybe not so much like the product of open-mindedness and the power of love, or not automatically so.
I'll stop here because I think I answered your question and then some.